No paper trail in AG's firing

Dave Battagello, The Windsor Star02.17.2012

Fired city auditor general Todd Langlois claims mayor Eddie Francis, left, didn't act on his concerns suggesting Max Zalev, right, chairman of the city’s audit committee, was trying to stonewall attempts to make his action plan public. Langlois also told the mayor that Zalev, as CEO of Enwin — one of the agencies that would be subject to a review by the auditor general — was “clearly in a conflict of interest position.”

Related

WINDSOR, Ont. -- City councillors were packing up and ready to go home after a two-hour council meeting Jan. 30, when Mayor Eddie Francis summoned them to an impromptu closed-door meeting.

There had been no public notice of the in-camera gathering, but Francis told them he needed to talk to them about a “personnel matter.” Councillors voted to waive the procedural bylaw, which requires written notice if council intends to meet behind closed doors.

They walked into a room behind council chambers and, when they were seated, Francis dropped the bomb.

He told them there was a “big problem” with the new auditor general, Todd Langlois, appointed only nine months earlier after an exhaustive three-year search, and it had to be addressed immediately.

For some councillors in the room — five of whom spoke to The Star on the condition of anonymity — it was the first time they heard any concerns about Langlois or his job performance.

“The mayor started the conversation noting concerns (about Langlois) from the audit committee,” one councillor said.

The word “rude” was used to describe Langlois. Francis also told councillors that Langlois was rough with staff and that it was “cause for concern.” They were told he couldn’t get along with senior administrators and that he attempted to circumvent them.

Less than two weeks earlier, Langlois had submitted a proposed three-year work plan, which included audits of city-owned utilities company Enwin, the Windsor Utilities Commission, the newly built WFCU Centre, and virtually every major department at city hall. But none of that was mentioned to the councillors.

Francis also told councillors that Langlois failed to follow their direction to outsource the auditor general’s office.

But councillors were never told about a report that Langlois had written and submitted Jan. 9 outlining the pros and cons of outsourcing the auditor general’s office.

While the mayor talked, there were no written reports from city administrators about Langlois’ performance or printed material from the audit committee, which had voted behind closed doors to fire Langlois at a meeting a few days earlier.

Francis started reading email messages from his BlackBerry phone, councillors said, and recited bits and pieces of exchanges he’d had with Langlois to bolster his position that the auditor general should be fired.

Councillors were told by the mayor that four days earlier, he and Langlois engaged in a heated confrontation about whether Enwin CEO Max Zalev was in conflict by serving as longtime chairman of the city’s audit committee.

Then Francis dialed a number on his BlackBerry. The voice on the other end was Bill Carter, the vice-chairman of the city’s audit committee and once a Langlois supporter.

Carter, on speakerphone, detailed to councillors problems with the man he once touted for the job. Carter described Langlois — who has worked as an auditor for 20 years — as uncoachable. “I’m trying to work with the guy and it’s not worked out,” Carter told council.

Carter “was recommending termination and that he was speaking on behalf of the audit committee,” said one councillor.

Added another: “For me, this was the guy who hired him and he said ‘let’s fire him.’ So, what do you say, keep him? That was it for me.”

When Carter was done speaking and answering questions, councillors were nearly unanimous.

“Everybody seemed to jump on board and not a lot of resistance other than how to do it and best way to protect council legally and from the public,” said one councillor.

The meeting was turned over to senior administrators — CAO Helga Reidel, city clerk Valerie Critchley, treasurer Onorio Colucci and solicitor George Wilkki — who briefly described their own difficult dealings with Langlois.

“Different administrators to a person indicated (staff) could not get along with this guy,” said one councillor, who indicated he would circumvent administration on issues.

“Basically concurring that he was rude and not helpful to the corporation,” said another.

Wilkki was asked whether a cause for dismissal should be cited. The solicitor indicated it was best not to cite anything since the city would have to legally prove it. Council was told that under Langlois’ five-year contract, he could be dismissed without cause.

Their financial obligation to Langlois was six months’ pay, they were told.

The councillors who talked to The Star said even had they known about Langlois’ reports on outsourcing and his work plan, they would not have changed the way they voted. In the end, council voted 9-1 to fire him, with Coun. Alan Halberstadt the only dissenting voice.

“It didn’t bother me (there was no paperwork),” said one councillor. “We had documentation read to us. It didn’t bother me because (prior) information was overwhelming. This wasn’t like we walked in cold and fired the guy. That didn’t happen. He was looked at closely and there has been no reason for me to second guess myself.”

Another criticized the work plan, which aimed to examine 28 city entities including the tunnel, airport and proposed aquatic centre, as unrealistic.

“I couldn’t even fathom what the cost of all that would be,” the councillor said. “It’s extremely ambitious and I find it difficult to believe he could cover all those areas.”

Langlois received an email from city solicitor George Wilkki early the next day, with a request to meet at 2:30 p.m. Langlois, suspicious by this point, responded to Wilkki’s email with an off-the-cuff remark: “Do I need to bring a lawyer?”

When Wilkki responded, “if you wish,” Langlois was convinced he was done.

Langlois said he was never told of concerns about his performance during his nine months with the city, and was never told why he was fired. His dismissal letter said it was “for numerous issues.”

He has retained lawyer Jim Cooke, but has not initiated legal action. He said he believes that behind his dismissal was his plan to dig deep into the city’s big-budget areas such as Enwin and the downtown aquatic project.

“My job was to find the taxpayers’ some savings,” he said. “The shots at me make no sense in my mind.”

One councillor expressed some remorse on acting too quickly during the meeting.

“Looking back in hindsight, maybe I got caught up too quickly and the mayor was just ‘go, go’ and driving it.”

But others said two weeks have made no change in their opinions of the fired auditor general.

“It’s only strengthened my feelings in the situation,” said one councillor. “Auditing should be a specific function, but it’s very political to say the least. It’s been abused and misused. It’s really taken on a life of its own. We really need to take a look at what we are trying to achieve here.”

Francis on Thursday stood behind the way events unfolded.

“They were not my reasons, but recommendations from the audit committee,” said Francis of what he told council that night. “I indicated the committee believed the relationship was not repairable and he should be released from his employment.”

The only personal dealings with Langlois he passed on to council that night were about the meeting in his office regarding the issue of Zalev being in conflict and around the issue of outsourcing, Francis said.

Of reading from his BlackBerry, Francis said it was just the report from the audit committee and one previous email exchange regarding the issue of outsourcing the auditor general’s office.

Not many terminations are done on the strength of written reports. “It’s often done verbally,” the mayor said.

If any member of council was not comfortable with firing Langlois that night, they could have requested a deferral, asked administration for written information or even indicated they wanted more time to think about it, he said.

“Council was comfortable based on the substance of information they had,” Francis said. “They had information in front of them, asked what they wanted to ask, then they voted and it was 9 to 1. I think the vote speaks for itself.”

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.

Almost Done!

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.